Agenda of Hawke's Bay Regional Council meeting

Hawke’s Bay Regional Council

28 August 2024

Subject: Local Government (Electoral Legislation and Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Act 2024

Reason for report

1. This item provides the means for Council to resolve whether or not to retain its Māori constituencies for the 2025 local elections as required by the Local Government (Electoral Legislation and Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Act 2024.

Staff recommendations

2. Staff recommend that Council considers the information provided in this paper along with a recommendation from the 21 August 2024 Māori Committee meeting to inform its decision on whether to:

2.1. Retain the Māui ki te Raki and Māui ki te Tonga Māori constituencies, or

2.2. Disestablish the Māui ki te Raki and Māui ki te Tonga Māori constituencies and seek the specific information from staff to enable a further resolution, by 6 September 2024, on how representation arrangements for the 2025 elections will be set.

Māori Committee recommendations

3. The Māori Committee meeting on 21 August 2024 resolved:

3.1. Recommends that Hawke’s Bay Regional Council resolves to retain the Māui ki te Raki and Māui ki te Tonga Māori constituencies for the 2025 elections.

3.2. Supports the Regional Council continuing to advocate in support of Māori representation in opposition to the current coalition government’s stance.

3.3. In addition, the hui (which also included Regional Planning Committee PSGE appointees) resolved its support for the Regional Council seeking constitutional remedies and protection in regards to the continuity of Māori Wards/Constituencies.

Executive summary

4. The Local Government (Electoral Legislation and Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Act 2024 (LEMAA) was enacted on 30 July 2024 and amends the Local Electoral Act 2001, the Local Government Electoral Legislation Act 2023 and the Local Electoral Regulations 2001, and,

4.1. reinstates the ability for 5% of electors to demand a poll on Māori wards and Māori constituencies.

4.2. requires councils to hold a binding poll during the 2025 local elections if a poll was not previously held when establishing Māori wards/constituencies, to determine if the region should be divided into one or more Māori constituencies from the 2028 general election.

4.3. adjusts the statutory timeframes for local elections to give more time for the postal delivery of voting papers.

5. The Act directs that the Regional Council must make an active decision to retain their Māori constituencies or to disestablish them by 6 September 2024.

6. Due to the direct impact of the LEMAA to those on the Māori roll, and the limited timeframe for the Council’s decisions tangata whenua views were gathered by the Māori Committee in preparation for a special Māori Committee meeting on 21 August 2024. The Committee received five written responses and shared and discussed further feedback from their communities with Regional Planning Committee appointees who joined the meeting.

7. The Māori Committee resolved to recommend that the Regional Council retain the Māui ki te Raki and Māui ki te Tonga constituencies for the 2025 local elections.

Background

8. Following legislative changes made in 2021 the Regional Council initiated extensive community engagement directly with the Hawke’s Bay community on whether to establish Maori constituencies. This included targeted engagement with iwi, hapu and marae as affected parties and given its significance, a comprehensive region-wide consultation with our communities using the special consultative procedure under the Local Government Act 2002. More submissions were received on this topic than any long-term plan. A resounding 89.23% of the 1,090 submitters supported the establishment of Māori constituencies.

9. A notable aspect of the consultation was the leadership provided by the Māori Committee co-Chairs who mobilised their affected communities and the Taiwhenua who hosted public meetings for all members of the community.

10. Following public consultation, HBRC voted unanimously to establish Māori constituencies (to be elected by voters on the Māori roll). This was to ensure Māori are guaranteed proportional representation on the Regional Council, reflecting the constitutional status of Māori under Te Tiriti o Waitangi (the Treaty of Waitangi), which is provided for in the Local Government and Local Electoral Acts. The dedicated seats add to existing methods to partner with Māori.

11. This was further consulted on as part of a Representation Review and the Council agreed to establish two Māori constituencies – Māui ki te Raki and Māui ki te Tonga. Māori constituency councillors were elected for the first time at the local body elections on 8 October 2022.

12. Earlier this year the new coalition government proposed undoing the 2021 changes which removed the legislative provisions enabling communities to demand a binding poll that could overturn the Council’s decision to establish Māori constituencies.

13. On 29 May 2024, Hawke’s Bay Regional Council submitted in opposition to the proposed Local Government (Electoral Legislation and Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill, stating that:

13.1. To suggest that because a binding poll was not held, the process HBRC undertook to establish the Māori constituencies was somehow inadequate undermines the process of local decision-making.

13.2. Where an overwhelming majority has already expressed approval for Māori constituencies through robust consultation processes, reinstating the ability for a binding poll could negate that positive democratic engagement.

13.3. The Bill’s proposal to require polls specifically for Māori constituencies imposes an inconsistent procedural standard not applied to other forms of Representation such as rural wards and community boards. This undermines the principle of equitable treatment in governance and is fundamentally unfair.

13.4. Māori wards are a direct expression of the principles of partnership and participation as outlined in Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

13.5. The decision to establish Māori constituencies should remain at the discretion of local councils, who are best positioned to understand and respond to the unique needs and preferences of their communities, including iwi and hapū. The proposed Bill would undermine local decision-making.

9. The number of submissions to the Justice Elect Committee on the proposed Bill are shown in Figure 1.

A screenshot of a table

Description automatically generated

Figure 1 – from the DIA Departmental Report on the Local Government (Electoral Legislation and Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill, Overview of submissions

Options assessment

10. Schedule 1 of the LEMAA does not set out any criteria for councils to consider when deciding whether or not to disestablish Māori constituencies however guidance from the Local Government Commission suggests that councils should consider the principles of the Local Electoral Act as set out in section 4, being:

1. The principles that this Act is designed to implement are the following:

(aa) representative and substantial electoral participation in local elections and polls:

(a) fair and effective representation for individuals and communities:

(b) all qualified persons have a reasonable and equal opportunity to—

(i) cast an informed vote:

(ii) nominate 1 or more candidates:

(iii) accept nomination as a candidate:

11. Figure 2 illustrates the two pathways available to the Council and the subsequent processes required depending on which pathway is chosen.

Figure 2 – from the Local Government Commission’s Guidelines for local authorities making decisions on Māori wards and Māori constituencies

12. If the Council decides to retain the Māori constituencies for the 2025 elections, no further action is required until the poll results are known. Any follow-on actions will take place in the lead-up to the 2028 elections.

12.1. Actual costs are unknown at this stage, however an estimate of the costs to run the poll with the 2025 local elections is roughly an additional $130,000 for HBRC.

13. If the Council decides to disestablish its Māori constituencies on 28 August 2024, a subsequent decision must be made by 6 September 2024 regarding the representation arrangements for the 2025 triennial election.

14. Attached is information on the subsequent decisions that Council must make if the decision is to disestablish.

15. Any future representation reviews that include Māori constituencies, except as the result of the 2025 poll, may be subject to the 5% voter petition to demand a binding poll.

Significance and Engagement Policy assessment

16. The Council’s previous decisions to establish the Māori constituencies were significant and were made following extensive community engagement directly with the Hawke’s Bay community which resulted in 1,090 submissions, 89.23% of which supported the establishment of Māori constituencies.

17. The LEMAA is silent on what an appropriate engagement process would look like in the short time-frame but having to undertake a section 83 Special Consultative Procedure is expressly ruled out. Council has used its own unique arrangements to engage with the Māori Committee and PSGEs as representatives of those most directly affected – Māori, particularly those on the Māori electoral roll.

18. This process began with an email to all Regional Planning and Māori Committee tangata whenua representatives on 16 July, followed by a formal letter after the enactment of the LEMAA.

Financial and resource implications

19. Actual costs are unknown at this stage, however, an estimate for the poll is roughly $130,000 for HBRC.

20. The costs of undertaking a shortened representation review would largely consist of staff time, plus advertising, consultation and meeting costs.

Decision-making considerations

21. Council and its committees are required to make every decision in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements in relation to this item and have concluded:

21.1. The decision does not significantly alter the service provision or affect a strategic asset, nor is it inconsistent with an existing policy or plan.

21.2. The use of the special consultative procedure is not prescribed by legislation.

21.3. The decision is significant under the criteria contained in Council’s adopted Significance and Engagement Policy.

21.4. The persons affected by this decision are voters in the Hawke’s Bay region.

21.5. Given the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided, and also the persons likely to be affected by, or have an interest in the decisions made, Council can exercise its discretion and make a decision having consulted with those most affected.

Recommendations

That Hawke’s Bay Regional Council:

1. Receives and considers the Local Government (Electoral Legislation and Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Act 2024 staff report.

2. Agrees that the decisions to be made are significant under the criteria contained in Council’s adopted Significance and Engagement Policy, and that Council can exercise its discretion and make decisions on this issue having conferred with the Māori Committee, representing Māori, including those on the Māori roll, and directly affected by the decisions.

3. Accepts the recommendation from the Māori Committee and retains the Māui ki te Raki and Māui ki te Tonga Māori constituencies.

4. Disestablishes the Māui ki te Raki and Māui ki te Tonga Māori constituencies and seeks the specific information from staff to enable a further resolution, by 6 September 2024, on how representation arrangements for the 2025 elections will be set.

5. Notes the Māori Committees resolution supporting the Regional Council seeking constitutional remedies and protection in regards to the continuity of Māori wards and/or constituencies.

6. Directs the Chief Executive to work with LGNZ and other councils seeking similar outcomes.

7. Continues to provide for governance partnerships at a regional level.

Authored by:

Leeanne Hooper

Team Leader Governance

Te Wairama Munro

Te Pou Whakarae

Approved by:

Nic Peet

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

1 ⇩

Subsequent decision processes to disestablishment of Māori constituencies

Hawke’s Bay Regional Council

28 August 2024

Subject: Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy 2120

Reason for report

1. This item presents the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy 2120 (the Strategy) as developed and recommended to HBRC by the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint Committee (Joint Committee).

Background

2. The Strategy development process began in late 2014 as a collaborative project between HBRC, Maungaharuru-Tangitū Trust, Napier City Council, Mana Ahuriri Trust, Hastings District Council and Tamatea Pōkai Whenua (at that time He Toa Takitini).

3. Alongside a range of ongoing and challenging coastal hazards issues, a key trigger for the establishment of the Joint Committee was the March 2014 report by Paul Komar and Erica Harris^{^[1]}.

4. The report considered the potential consequences to the coast from climate change, noting that “It is evident that any increase in the future levels of the sea and in the intensities of storms, both being projected by climatologists to occur during the next 100 years, would result in significantly enhanced threats to properties along the Hawke’s Bay coast.”

5. The Joint Committee was formed to develop a coordinated response to this challenge with support provided by a Technical Advisory Group (TAG).

6. Initial work to better understand coastal hazards and the risks they present was deliberately paced, with efforts made to communicate clearly, test and refine hazard and risk assessments with affected communities, and to start with information and communication, rather than regulation.

7. In 2017 the Strategy development process ramped up, with the formation of two community assessment panels. Over 14 months the panels worked tirelessly with their communities, technical experts, academics and councils to develop their recommended responses to the predicted effects of coastal erosion and coastal inundation.

8. The panels’ work coincided with the release of the 2017 version of the Ministry for the Environment’s Coastal hazards and climate change guidance (most recently updated in 2024^{^[2]}). This guidance recommended the use of a relatively new methodology, Dynamic Adaptive Pathways Planning (DAPP). At that time, DAPP had not been used in a coastal hazard context in New Zealand.

9. Re-working the approach of the Strategy to utilise DAPP proved a challenge; TAG and the Joint Committee were designing the plane as they flew it. The Joint Committee was fortunate to be aided in this by the Living at the Edge project under the Resilience to Nature’s Challenges National Science Project. The Living at the Edge researchers shadowed the Strategy development process and provided a ‘critical friend’.

10. In 2018 the Panels delivered their final report, making a series of recommendations for long term adaptive pathways and other actions at the coast.

11. This marked a turning point in the Strategy development process, as TAG and the Joint Committee began the process of translating the community Panel’s recommendations into Council-led actions.

12. The first task was extensive design work to build detail and more accurate costings around the first actions in the pathways recommended by the Panels. A coastal process model was developed in-house at HBRC to take a whole-of-coast look at how various structures and nourishment programmes interacted with coastal processes and sea level rise.

13. Other work progressed on developing thresholds (required by DAPP) to determine when pathways need to be implemented to avoid intolerable coastal hazards effects, and defining what a managed retreat response might look like in Hawke’s Bay, how it might be done, and how much it might cost.

14. This work progressed alongside a series of community engagement workshops held from late 2020 through to mid-2022. The workshops included returning Panel members and some community members new to the Strategy, who collectively provided a sounding board and assisted with testing and development.

15. The Joint Committee has faced a raft of challenges with progressing the Strategy since the Community Panels delivered their recommendations, with the most significant being the Covid-19 global pandemic and Cyclone Gabrielle. Each required a major re-think on how best to progress this work and engage with tangata whenua and communities deeply affected by these events.

16. One of the most time-consuming internal challenges was developing an approach to pay for Strategy implementation. Unlike most local government functions, there is no clear legislative direction on whether regional councils or territorial authorities should lead this type of work.

17. The Raynor Asher report^{^[3]} helped unlock this, and presented clear recommendations that led the Councils to enter into a Memorandum of Transition in 2022 that confirmed an in-principle position that HBRC would lead Strategy implementation. TAG is not aware of any other examples of an arrangement like this being formed elsewhere in New Zealand.

18. To formalise this arrangement, a range of legislative and process matters required resolution, including that HBRC would need to consult with the community on a proposal to undertake a significant new activity under s.16 of the Local Government Act.

19. HBRC commenced this process in 2022, including meeting a requirement that it must consult with all Territorial Authorities in the region, which was concluded successfully. However, HBRC received advice from the Office of the Auditor General that a s.16 consultation process required a full and functional funding model to be defined. As this was still in development, HBRC elected instead to undertake a more general consultation process to test community sentiment on the proposal that HBRC would lead Strategy implementation. HBRC’s consultation process concluded in July 2022 and showed good community support for this.

20. Since then, the Joint Committee has focused on working out how the costs for Strategy implementation should be allocated between those properties and ratepayers with direct and indirect benefits.

21. The “who pays?” question is vexing Councils nation-wide and is regularly identified as the greatest challenge to taking action on climate change adaptation.

Joint Committee recommendations

22. On 9 August 2024 the Joint Committee considered the proposed Strategy document, compiled from all of the work undertaken by the Panels, Joint Committee and councils to date.

23. The Strategy is intended for multiple audiences but is primarily a document to drive Council actions.

24. The actions proposed in the Strategy are directly reflective of the long-term adaptive pathways recommended by the Community Panels. Additional actions are proposed to ensure a comprehensive response, including further work under the Mātauranga Māori Workstream and a recommended regulatory response to both facilitate Strategy implementation, while addressing the risk of maladaptation.

25. The Strategy also includes proposed funding principles to guide and inform the development of HBRC’s funding model for Strategy implementation. Further refinement and development work is required by Section 101 (3) of the Local Government Act in order to prepare a fully functional funding model to test through community consultation. The Joint Committee has been deliberate about leaving this work to HBRC, as the primary decision-maker and only agency that is able to consider the specific organisational and ratepayer implications from various funding model refinements.

26. At the 9 August meeting, the Joint Committee confirmed the Strategy document (with some minor wording alterations) and passed the following resolutions.

That the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint Committee:

26.1. Receives and considers the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy and Long Term Plan Amendment recommendations to HBRC staff report.

26.2. Recommends that Hawke’s Bay Regional Council:

26.2.1. Receives the proposed Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy dated July 2024 and provided as Attachment 1

26.2.2. Using the proposed funding principles included in the Strategy, refines and finalises a funding model for Strategy implementation

26.2.3. Prepares a final Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy for community consultation in in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002

26.2.4. Commences community consultation no later than March 2025.

27. With this resolution, the torch has been passed from the Joint Committee to HBRC Strategy in accordance with the Memorandum of Transition. This largely concludes the work of the Joint Committee, although the Joint Committee remains in place should HBRC wish to seek any further support or clarification.

28. The final Strategy recommended by the Joint Committee to HBRC is provided as Attachment 1 to this paper^{^[4]}.

Strategy consultation and implementation

29. Although the timeframes have changed, the process of confirming, adopting and implementing the Strategy as set out in the Memorandum of Transition is still being followed.

30. Table 1 sets out the process steps and indicative timelines established by the Memorandum of Transition and provides a status update on each step.

Table 1: Memorandum of Transition - process steps and status update as 28 August 2024

Memorandum of Transition process step and indicative timeline (from Schedule Two)	Current Status
a) HDC will undertake targeted consultation in relation to the proposed transfer of responsibilities for the Waimarama Sea Wall to HBRC. The outcome of consultation shall be reported back to the Parties by 31 May 2022.	Completed on time
b) HBRC will initiate a public consultation process in accordance with section 82A of the LGA to seek feedback on the Proposal. HBRC shall seek to conclude this consultative process by 30 September 2022.	Completed on time
c) The Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint Committee shall recommend a final proposed Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy to HBRC by 31 March 2023.	Completed 9 August 2024
d) The Parties shall prepare and execute the Asset Transfer Agreement by 31 July 2023.	On hold – asset transfer is administratively sensible (so that all coastal hazard mitigation work is managed by a single agency) but is not fundamental to successful Strategy implementation. Propose that Asset Transfer Agreement is advanced once Strategy is confirmed.
e) HBRC shall give effect to the Proposal in accordance with sections 16 (including requirements to notify the Minster of Local Government) and 93B to 93G of the LGA and the requirements of HBRC’s Significance and Engagement Policy and confirm funding arrangement for implementing physical works under the Strategy through its 2024 – 2034 Long Term Plan.	Current work in progress.
f) The Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint Committee shall be disestablished on 30 June 2024.	Delayed – Joint Committee has concluded its work but remains on stand-by.
g) The Advisory Committee shall be established from 1 July 2024.	Delayed – to be actioned following disestablishment of the Joint Committee
h) The transfer of assets in accordance with the Asset Transfer Agreement shall occur by 1 July 2024.	On hold pending development of Asset Transfer Agreement.

31. HBRC’s most significant task before community consultation can commence is to complete funding model refinements and adopt a final Strategy.

Significance and Engagement Policy assessment

32. The decision to receive the Strategy is not significant. Future decisions on the timing and funding of the Strategy implementation will be significant and require community consultation.

Next steps

33. Staff propose to develop a detailed workshop plan and decision-making process to map out HBRC’s next steps for consideration.

Decision-making considerations

34. Council and its committees are required to make every decision in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements in relation to this item and have concluded:

34.1. The decision does not significantly alter the service provision or affect a strategic asset, nor is it inconsistent with an existing policy or plan.

34.2. The use of the special consultative procedure is not prescribed by legislation.

34.3. The decision is not significant under the criteria contained in Council’s adopted Significance and Engagement Policy.

34.4. There are no persons affected by the decision to receive the Strategy.

34.5. Given the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided, and also the persons likely to be affected by, or have an interest in the decisions made, Council can exercise its discretion and make a decision without consulting directly with the community or others having an interest in the decision.

Recommendations

That Hawke’s Bay Regional Council

1. Receives and considers the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy 2120 staff report.

2. Receives the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy 2120.

3. Notes the recommendations from the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint Committee.

4. Instructs the Chief Executive to provide advice on the pathway to implementation taking into account all of HBRC’s priorities.

Authored by:

Simon Bendall

Coastal Hazards Strategy Project Manager

Approved by:

Chris Dolley

Group Manager Asset Management

Attachment/s

1 ⇨

Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy 2120

Under Separate Cover

Hawke’s Bay Regional Council

28 August 2024

Subject: Implementing recommendations from reviews arising from Cyclone Gabrielle

Reason for report

1. This report asks Council to consider an initial response to the 49 recommendations directly relevant to Hawke’s Bay Regional Council arising from independent reviews since Cyclone Gabrielle.

2. It also seeks a decision from Council to prioritise the implementation of the recommendations that have the most practical impact in the short term, particularly actions that HBRC can take to improve the way we communicate flood risk and enable others to make informed decisions for community safety. Where funding is an issue, this is noted.

3. It also asks Council to agree the reporting framework for ongoing reporting on the implementation of recommendations.

Staff recommendations

4. Staff recommend that the Regional Council reviews the initial response to the recommendations of the reviews and provides guidance on which recommendations to progress for immediate implementation.

Executive Summary

5. Staff have undertaken an initial analysis of the recommendations from independent reviews arising from Cyclone Gabrielle to understand what actions are required. The independent reviews currently include:

5.1 HB Independent Flood Review (HBIFR)

5.2 Government Inquiry into the Response to the North Island Severe Weather Events, and

5.3 HBCDEM Response to Cyclone Gabrielle.

6. Table 1 is a high-level summary of the status of the recommendations. More information and commentary is provided in the attached Analysis Report.

Table 1

Background /Discussion

7. The HBIFR was commissioned by the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council to investigate the circumstances and contributing factors that led to the flooding in the Hawke’s Bay region during Cyclone Gabrielle. The report was received by the Regional Council on 31 July 2024. It is a comprehensive 249-page document, with 47 recommendations split into seven focus areas.

8. We have used this review as the base for the reporting framework and linked similar recommendations from two further reviews, the Government Inquiry into the Response to the North Island Severe Weather Events, and the Independent Review into HB CDEM Group’s Response to Cyclone Gabrielle.

9. Only recommendations that sit directly within HBRC’s area of responsibility have been included. It does not venture into areas under the responsibility of HB CDEM.

10. It is intended to report each recommendation to Council at an agreed frequency, noting some recommendations are short term and easy to implement and some are intergenerational changes to the way we have done flood mitigation to date with no easy fix and therefore require deep conversations with our community.

Analysis

11. The attached Analysis Report is the first report against the recommendations. It is a preliminary view, or a snapshot in time to give governors and the community visibility on the plan for implementation. More nuanced reporting will come in future iterations.

12. The Analysis Report lists the recommendations, commentary on the work required to implement the recommendations and assesses the recommendations against a number of factors.

13. Factors include:

13.1. Status

13.2. Funding

13.3. Estimated timescale

13.4. Complexity (ease of implementation).

14. Analysis on capacity and capability will be undertaken once scoping has been undertaken.

Critical for community decision-making

15. From our analysis we have identified 8 recommendations that will improve the way we communicate flood risk and enable others to make informed decisions for community safety. These recommendations relate to measuring, monitoring and communicating actions.

16. Three are already completed, 1 is underway and funded, 2 are partially underway and 2 are yet to be scoped. Further assessment and scoping is needed to determine capacity, capability and costs.

Table 2

Recommendations		Initial response to recommendation	Status	Timescale	Funding Status	Estimated cost range
1	FRHBRC-15 HBRC should actively communicate and educate communities about the level of flood risk they are exposed to and assist them in improving their resilience to flooding, including, but not confined to, improving and updating the HBRC online Hazard Portal.	Proposed Flood Plain Management Plans and external facing document talking about the risks associated with the flood plains, levels of protection and level of potential flooding. The Hazard Portal (or similar) will require further investment. Current failure outcome scenario outcomes should be redone with the latest available technology.	Partially underway and/ or needs further assessment	Short (0-3)	Partially funded	$1m-$10m
2	FRHBRC-19 HBRC should ensure that robust systems are in place to alert the community when trigger levels are being approached or exceeded and ensure Civil Defence has all the information it needs to undertake its functions. This could include providing greater public access to HBRC river flood forecast information.	Responsibility to alert the community sits with CDEM but the intelligence required sits with HBRC. Planning underway to improve public interface and access to river level data and flood modelling. More web cameras are being installed that can be accessed by public for real-time viewing (infrared 24/7). Flow information goes to website and LAWA in real time. This is part of our BAU. Further consideration required for how the flood warning data (maps showing inundation) is converted into a digestible product to allow the public to make informed decisions on self-service evacuation/ action.	Partially underway and/ or needs further assessment	Short (0-3)	Partially funded	$1m-$10m
3	FRHBRC-18 HBRC should identify specific trigger levels for alerts and recommended evacuations for known flood risk areas, document these in their Flood Manual and communicate them with those who are affected.	Proposed Flood Management Plans. Further analysis required: a) what are community acceptable trigger levels? This needs to be tested. b) Currently only have three schemes. Where are trigger levels required? More analysis needed. Need to make information available through self-service community portal (not scoped) and informing CDEM.	Not yet scoped	Medium (3-10)	Partially funded	$1m-$10m
4	FRHBRC-20 HBRC should take a precautionary approach when providing forecast flood inundation information to Civil Defence. The use of “worst case scenario” terminology should be avoided as that conveys a potentially inaccurate and overly optimistic assessment of what may actually occur. All communications regarding potential flood inundation should be as clear and decisive as possible.	Already under review. Will have resourcing implications.	Not yet scoped	Ongoing	Not funded	$10k-$1m
5	FRHBRC-17 HBRC should improve its systems and technology for monitoring and modelling rainfall in real-time in order to provide more accurate and timely forecasts of river flows and associated flood inundation across the region. For example, communication stations should have adequate back-up power supplies to continue operating when needed and it should be clear when data is not being gathered or transmitted. Inundation maps for a range of events should also be readily available.	Models have been updated for current schemes. Upgrades to Telemetry network, under the NIWE programme. Now have three forms of communication: analogy, digital and cellular, or satellite. All communication networks have back up power source (multi battery backups). Instrumentation has been moved to safer locations, away from bridges etc.	Underway	Short (0-3)	Funded	$1m-$10m
6	FRHBRC-06 When designing flood management works or assessing the adequacy of existing works, HBRC should include historic floods that have not been measured as part of the systematic record in the analysis. For example, the inclusion of the 1938 flood flow estimate for the Esk Valley significantly affects the assigned frequency of the 2023 event. Similarly, for Pōrangahau the inclusion of the 1941 and 1953 flood events significantly changes the assessment of the 2023 flood frequency and the basis for what is a reasonable design standard for the future.	NIWA flood frequency data is currently being used in most areas, apart from where NIWA highlighted uncertainty. In these instances, further analysis is being undertaken.	Completed/ BAU
7	FRHBRC-16 HBRC should ensure that flood risk is accurately quantified and that flood frequency assessments include significant past flood events.	NIWA flood frequency data is currently being used in most areas, apart from where NIWA highlighted uncertainty. In these instances, further analysis is being undertaken. Climate change scenarios have been applied to all Category 2 mitigations, as per government instruction. This needs to be rolled out across all schemes moving forward.	Completed/ BAU
8	FRHBRC-23 HBRC should update and include the 2023 flood event as well as other notable historic floods in the assessment of flood frequency for use in identifying flood hazard areas. The underestimation of flood risk in the Esk valley and Porangahau are examples of significant historic floods not being accounted for.	NIWA flood frequency data is currently being used in most areas, apart from where NIWA highlighted uncertainty. In these instances, further analysis is being undertaken.	Completed/ BAU

Completed and under way recommendations

17. There are 7 recommendations completed and 16 underway. The recommendations are listed below. More detail on these is provided in the full Analysis Report.

18. There are 5 recommendations related to the Regional Policy Statement and Regional Resource Management Plan. This work is underway and due to be brought to the Council mid-2025.

Table 3

Completed Recommendations
1	FRHBRC-06 When designing flood management works or assessing the adequacy of existing works, HBRC should include historic floods that have not been measured as part of the systematic record in the analysis. For example, the inclusion of the 1938 flood flow estimate for the Esk Valley significantly affects the assigned frequency of the 2023 event. Similarly, for Pōrangahau the inclusion of the 1941 and 1953 flood events significantly changes the assessment of the 2023 flood frequency and the basis for what is a reasonable design standard for the future.
2	FRHBRC-16 HBRC should ensure that flood risk is accurately quantified and that flood frequency assessments include significant past flood events.
3	FRHBRC-21 The Panel endorses the recommendations of the Hawke's Bay Regional Cyclone Recovery Committee Telemetry Review (August 2023), the Report of the Independent External Review for Hawke's Bay Civil defence and Emergency management Group (March 2024) and the Report of the Government Enquiry into the Response to the North Island Severe Weather Events (March 2024).
4	FRHBRC-23 HBRC should update and include the 2023 flood event as well as other notable historic floods in the assessment of flood frequency for use in identifying flood hazard areas. The underestimation of flood risk in the Esk valley and Porangahau are examples of significant historic floods not being accounted for.
5	FRHBRC-30 HBRC should re-survey all river and stream channels within current Scheme boundaries to assess whether they meet the currently agreed levels of service in the respective Asset Management Plans. From this work, a prioritised work programme should be developed to demonstrate how any systems that are not at their agreed service levels will be returned to those.
6	GINIWE-12A, III & V Formally recognise the following as necessary critical infrastructure sectors (in addition to current lifelines): I. Supermarkets II. Waste management III. stopbank and flood protection systems IV. rural water, and V. river management systems
7	IRHBCDEM-B1 b) iv. Management of forestry by products

Table 4

Recommendations underway
1	FRHBRC-04 HBRC should collaborate with mana whenua and other communities in developing fair and equitable flood management solutions. These solutions should recognise and compensate appropriately those properties that are adversely affected in order to achieve an overall community benefit.
2	FRHBRC-11 HBRC should review the efficacy of deflection banks on stopbanks to ascertain their benefits and the risks of isolated turbulence that can contribute to increased flood levels and or erosive failure of stopbanks. This is particularly relevant on the Ngaruroro River where stopbank breaches occurred where these features were located.
3	FRHBRC-12 HBRC should review the alignment of access tracks over the crest of stopbanks, with a preference for these starting from the downstream end and heading up the stopbank to reduce turbulence that may affect stopbank performance.
4	FRHBRC-13 HBRC should undertake regular monitoring and topping up of the stopbank crest around access tracks to ensure crest levels are maintained. The most notable example of this was the access track immediately upstream of the bridge across the Ngaruroro at Omahu, where a breach occurred.
5	FRHBRC-14 HBRC should complete a risk assessment of adverse stopbank alignments including sharp bends and locations where stopbanks are in very close proximity to river channels. The risk assessment should include prioritised mitigation measures to manage these risks. One notable example is the Walker Road stopbank on the Waipawa River which has a very adverse alignment, being perpendicular to the direction of river flow and very close to the active river channel.
6	FRHBRC-17 HBRC should improve its systems and technology for monitoring and modelling rainfall in real- time in order to provide more accurate and timely forecasts of river flows and associated flood inundation across the region. For example, communication stations should have adequate back-up power supplies to continue operating when needed and it should be clear when data is not being gathered or transmitted. Inundation maps for a range of events should also be readily available.
7	FRHBRC-22 HBRC should urgently review the Regional Policy Statement so that it includes clear and directive objectives and policies regarding land use management in flood hazard areas.
8	FRHBRC-24 HBRC should ensure that the Regional Policy Statement provisions: a) identify and map areas subject to flood hazard risks, including scenarios that exceed the levels of service provided by flood management assets; b) direct how the effects of climate change are to be taken into consideration when identifying flood hazard areas and assessing subdivision and land use applications; c) define unacceptable flood risk; d) direct that district plans avoid unacceptable flood hazard risks, including, for example, through the use of prohibited activity rules; e) define when mitigation measures to manage flood hazard risks are appropriate and the types of mitigation that are appropriate; f) identify areas of high flood risk where managed retreat is required.
9	FRHBRC-25 The review of the Regional Policy Statement should ensure that new and intensified residential development and subdivision is prohibited in areas subject to unacceptable flood hazard.
10	FRHBRC-26 The review of the Regional Policy Statement should ensure that direction is provided for the identification and management of residual flood risks resulting from ponding, stopbank breaches and overflow. The Panel recommends that the approach to residual risk adopted by Kapiti Coast District Council is taken as best practice.
11	FRHBRC-27 HBRC should urgently review the provisions of the Regional Resource Management Plan to ensure that the design of new structures, particularly bridges, minimises to the extent practicable, the extent to which those structures constrict flood flows and act as debris barriers during floods. An example would be to explore options not involving / minimising the use of piles and raising bridge deck levels well above extreme flood levels.
12	FRHBRC-34 HBRC should evaluate the need to add maintenance of the Wairoa River channel to the scope of the existing Asset Management Plan for this area. This evaluation should include consideration of riparian vegetation management as well as riverbed level monitoring in line with typical survey frequency (5-yearly) of the region’s other main rivers.
13	FRHBRC-41 The Panel encourages HBRC to work proactively and in partnership with mana whenua in the development of recovery plans such as Utaina: 10 Year Recovery Plan which was developed by Piringa Hapū (Ngāti Hinemanu, Ngai Te Upokoiri, Ngāti Honomokai, Ngāti Mahuika) to restore and preserve a resilient natural environment.
14	FRHBRC-43 HBRC should make more and better use of local networks and knowledge that exist within communities, as it leads the process of developing comprehensive flood risk management solutions and implements the physical works needed to improve flood resilience in Hawke’s Bay.
15	FRHBRC-45 HBRC should review the resourcing of its flood risk management activities to ensure it is sufficient to deliver the agreed level of service for day-to-day operations, and have sufficient back-up and contingency for delivering flood event management responsibilities.
16	FRHBRC-46 HBRC should continue to be proactive in working in partnership with the central government to provide an affordable funding mechanism for new capital works and ongoing maintenance activities.

Reporting framework

19. It is proposed that recommendations will be reported on quarterly using a similar format as the Analysis Report. This will be the ongoing status report.

20. Supporting information will be provided for each recommendation to show scope and objectives.

Significance and Engagement Policy assessment

21. Several of the recommendations are significant and will require deep engagement and public consultation on funding proposals.

22. As this is the first report on the recommendations Council can give direction without seeking views.

Financial and resource implications

23. Indicative cost estimates have been provided, but several of the recommendations are yet to be scoped and others require further assessment.

Decision-making considerations

24. Council and its committees are required to make every decision in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements in relation to this item and have concluded:

24.1. The decision does not significantly alter the service provision or affect a strategic asset, nor is it inconsistent with an existing policy or plan.

24.2. The use of the special consultative procedure is not prescribed by legislation.

24.3. The decision is not significant under the criteria contained in Council’s adopted Significance and Engagement Policy.

24.4. The persons affected by this decision are all residents and ratepayers in the region.

24.5. Given the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided, and also the persons likely to be affected by, or have an interest in the decisions made, Council can exercise its discretion and make a decision without consulting directly with the community or others having an interest in the decision.

Recommendations

That Hawke’s Bay Regional Council:

1. Receives and considers the Implementing recommendations from reviews arising from Cyclone Gabrielle staff report.

2. Agrees that the decisions to be made are not significant under the criteria contained in Council’s adopted Significance and Engagement Policy, and that Council can exercise its discretion and make decisions on this issue without conferring directly with the community.

3. Notes that of the 49 recommendations relevant to Hawke’s Bay Regional Council:

3.1. 7 are completed

3.2. 16 are underway

3.3. 15 are partially under way

3.4. 8 have not yet been scoped

3.5. 1 is paused (after being partially underway)

3.6. 1 requires pre-feasibility analysis

3.7. 1 is not HBRC-led.

4. Directs the Chief Executive to fully scope the 4 recommendations that will improve the way we communicate flood risk and enable others to make informed decisions for community safety, being:

4.1. FRHBRC-15. HBRC should actively communicate and educate communities about the level of flood risk they are exposed to and assist them in improving their resilience to flooding, including, but not confined to, improving and updating the HBRC online Hazard Portal.

4.2. FRHBRC-19. HBRC should ensure that robust systems are in place to alert the community when trigger levels are being approached or exceeded and ensure Civil Defence has all the information it needs to undertake its functions. This could include providing greater public access to HBRC river flood forecast information.

4.3. FRHBRC-18. HBRC should identify specific trigger levels for alerts and recommended evacuations for known flood risk areas, document these in their Flood Manual and communicate them with those who are affected.

4.4. FRHBRC-20. HBRC should take a precautionary approach when providing forecast flood inundation information to Civil Defence. The use of “worst case scenario” terminology should be avoided as that conveys a potentially inaccurate and overly optimistic assessment of what may actually occur. All communications regarding potential flood inundation should be as clear and decisive as possible.

5. Directs the Chief Executive to undertake further assessment of the remaining recommendations (following) that require further assessment and/ or a funding review.

5.1. FRHBRC-05. HBRC should determine the design standard of improved flood management systems based on robust economic analysis to determine the minimum net cost accounting for the investment required for the flood mitigation works and the value of flood damages avoided due to those works. The widely applied 100-year, including climate change, should be considered the minimum standard and not the default standard. This will necessitate consideration of the flood management standards and long-term budgets, an example being the 500-year flood standard for the entire Heretaunga Plains Scheme within the current Long Term Plan. (partially underway but not funded)

5.2. FRHBRC-07. When assessing and designing flood management systems near river mouths, HBRC should incorporate scenarios that consider partial blockage situations, as well as a range of sea level and storm surge conditions. By way of example, at the Esk River mouth, the interaction with the adverse coastal conditions in addition to significant debris loading is likely to have increased flood levels in the lower reach of the river. (partially underway and partially funded)

5.3. FRHBRC-08. When assessing and designing flood management systems near bridges, HBRC should incorporate scenarios that consider partial blockage situations and account for this in the design. The breaching of stopbanks immediately upstream of bridges was a notable feature of this event, with the breach at Awatoto being a clear example. (partially underway and partially funded)

5.4. FRHBRC-09. HBRC should ensure that where natural high ground forms part of the flood management system, it is identified and appropriately protected so that it maintains its functionality over time. For example, it was unclear whether the high ground upstream of Waiohiki marae was at the same level during the flood as it was when surveyed and assessed to be up to the 100-year design standard. (not scoped and not funded)

5.5. FRHBRC-10. HBRC should undertake a review of activities allowed to be undertaken on river floodway berms and stopbanks to ensure that the flood management infrastructure is protected from damage and or ongoing maintenance requirements that would otherwise not be required. For example, the use of motorbikes and 4WD vehicles on the Waipawa and Ngaruroro Rivers. (paused)

5.6. FRHBRC-28. HBRC should ensure it has sufficient financial and people resources available to allow it to provide effective advocacy and technical input to planning processes and resource consent applications, so as to ensure that development does not occur in areas subject to unacceptable flood hazard risk. (partially underway and partially funded)

5.7. FRHBRC-32. HBRC should be more proactive in managing gravel build up where it is above design grade lines, and either extract it to maintain the agreed level of service or develop and implement alternative options. These should include but not be limited to being more directive regarding gravel extraction and removing contractor's ability to pick and choose locations based on convenience. Noting that the 2023 flood event will have likely changed the riverbed levels considerably, the upper Tukituki system and the Tūtaekurī and lower Esk River were noted as locations where specific assessments and actions were needed. (partially underway but not funded)

5.8. FRHBRC-33 HBRC should investigate options for more permanent river mouth openings using techniques such as heavy guide banks/moles at locations where it is critical for flood conveyance and increased flood levels cannot be accommodated by upstream flood management works. During Cyclone Gabrielle the Esk River mouth was at least partially impeded and may have contributed to the extent of upstream flooding. (pre-feasibility analysis)

5.9. FRHBRC-34. HBRC should evaluate the need to add maintenance of the Wairoa River channel to the scope of the existing Asset Management Plan for this area. This evaluation should include consideration of riparian vegetation management as well as riverbed level monitoring in line with typical survey frequency (5-yearly) of the region’s other main rivers. (underway but only partially funded)

5.10. FRHBRC-35 Using the survey data noted above, HBRC should complete a geomorphic assessment of the bed level trajectory for the lower Wairoa River for the purpose of assisting with the assessment of flood management infrastructure options for this area. (not scoped and not funded)

5.11. FRHBRC-37 HBRC should acknowledge the inequity whereby Māori land and communities have been marginalised by decisions and actions of central and local government for many decades and are often located on low-lying, flood-prone land (e.g. Tangoio, Waiohiki and Omāhu). (not scoped and not funded)

5.12. FRHBRC-38 HBRC should recognise and provide for Māori communities and low-socio-economic areas that are disproportionately exposed to flood risk because flood protection in those areas does not satisfy HBRC's traditional cost/benefit approaches. HBRC should develop a new flood management model with mana whenua. (not scoped and not funded)

5.13. FRHBRC-40. Where marae and papakainga are unprotected in terms of flood protection works (two examples being marae at Porangahau and Wairoa), HBRC needs to partner with mana whenua groups at those places in looking at options to render those communities safe and sustainable into the future. Options may include raising the floor levels of marae or moving communities to higher ground. HBRC needs to engage urgently with these communities and with the Crown provide funding and assistance for planning, consultation, purchasing and other measures necessary to manage flood risk effectively in these marae and papakainga. (partially underway and partially funded)

5.14. FRHBRC-42. HBRC should communicate and collaborate effectively with communities, mana whenua and stakeholders in the development and implementation of flood risk management solutions for areas subject to flood risk. (partially underway and partially funded)

5.15. FRHBRC-43. HBRC should make more and better use of local networks and knowledge that exist within communities, as it leads the process of developing comprehensive flood risk management solutions and implements the physical works needed to improve flood resilience in Hawke’s Bay. (underway but only partially funded)

5.16. FRHBRC-44. HBRC should develop a collaborative process for developing flood scheme designs involving regional and district councils, mana whenua and the wider community. (partially underway and partially funded)

5.17. FRHBRC-47 HBRC should review the funding of current and future river management Schemes so that the local and regional share provide affordable and equitable outcomes. (not scoped and not funded)

6. Agrees that HBRC is not the lead agency for the following recommendation and will play a supporting role in its implementation.

6.1. FRHBRC-39. HBRC should engage urgently with communities on Category 3 land such as Petane Marae and Tangoio Marae and, with the Crown and territorial authorities, provide funding and assistance for the planning, consultation, purchase and potential rebuild of these maraes and papakainga on other land.

7. Agrees with the reporting framework, for regular reporting on implementation of the review recommendations, for staff to implement.

Authored by:

Louise McPhail

Manager Regulatory Implementation

Julie-Anne McLean

Programme Manager Regulatory Implementation

Desiree Cull

Strategy & Governance Manager

Chris Dolley

Group Manager Asset Management

Approved by:

Nic Peet

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

1 ⇩

HBIFR recommendations Analysis Report

Hawke’s Bay Regional Council

28 August 2024

Subject: Report from the Risk and Audit Committee

Reason for report

1. The following matters were considered by the Risk and Audit Committee (RAC) on 31 July 2024 and are now presented for the Council’s information.

Agenda items for Council decision

2. The RAC did not consider any items requiring recommendations to Council for decisions.

Information items

3. The Treasury Compliance Report for the period 1 April – 30 June 2024 item presented the RAC with the compliance monitoring report for HBRC treasury activity and the performance of Council’s investment portfolio for the quarter ended 30 June 2024, and highlighted:

3.1. At the end of the quarter to 30 June 2024, HBRC was compliant with all measures in its Treasury Policy; however, during the quarter it did breach the counterparty risk policy with BNZ over 2 weekends due to the requirement to hold additional funds for loan repayments due on Monday mornings.

3.2. The effects of Cyclone Gabrielle and its recovery continue to impact both cash balances and borrowing requirements. Additional ongoing borrowing to fund recovery will continue over the next 3-4 years, and while proceeds from insurance claims could take up to a year, NEMA claims will be completed in the next 3-4 months.

3.3. In June, Fitch confirmed it issued to Council a Long-Term Local-Currency Issuer Default Rating of ‘AA’. This rating allows any lending from LGFA to be at a discounted rate (generally 20 base points) and increases the Council’s Lending Policy Covenants with LGFA.

3.4. The Risk and Audit Committee resolved that:

3.4.1. That the Risk and Audit Committee receives and notes the Treasury Compliance Report for the period 1 April– 30 June 2024.

4. The Enterprise Assurance update item covered the status of outstanding audit recommendations as well as the internal audit programme and discussions highlighted:

4.1. Council is currently in a period of readjustment after the unusually high number of reviews that have been or are in the process of being completed since Cyclone Gabrielle.

4.2. Concern was raised about the long-outstanding actions from internal audits and the Committee agreed that given there are bigger priorities facing the Committee and Council, those operational issues would be closed.

4.3. The Risk and Audit Committee resolved to:

4.3.1. Receive and note the Enterprise Assurance update staff report.

4.3.2. Confirm that the Internal Assurance Corrective actions update report has provided adequate information on the status of the Internal Assurance Corrective Actions.

5. The Risk Management update item covered:

5.1. The Government’s reform programme opportunities and risks to HBRC including:

5.1.1. short-term policy resets by Government that impact on service delivery and environmental outcomes in our communities

5.1.2. investment in responding/submitting on all of the proposals, while maintaining focus on our own BAU programmes

5.1.3. possible reduced Crown funding for some of HBRC’s activities as a result of public sector personnel cuts, and Budget 2024

5.1.4. the combined effects and intent of the Government’s reforms on the role and interests of Māori in resource management in addition to proposed Tiriti o Waitangi and Māori constituencies legislative changes.

5.2. The Committee were informed of a high operational risk near miss incident where rainfall data didn't display on the HBRC website. This was during a wet weather event. The issue was quickly resolved and measures have been put in place to prevent recurrence.

5.3. Assurance reviews were undertaken across:

5.3.1. Information management – across HBRC’s data and information management policies, with a focus on data classification, how to then manage the storage and sharing of documents labelled ‘confidential’ or ‘restricted’, and record retention and disposal

5.3.2. External security – a 1-week trial of the Orange Cyber defence external attack programme, which seeks to find vulnerabilities in our external facing network, and for which HBRC obtained ‘Hero’ status, with only 3 prioritised findings relating to dead-link sites on the HBRC website.

5.4. The Risk and Audit Committee resolved to receive and consider the Risk Management update staff report.

6. The Committee then moved into Public Excluded session for an update and understanding of the various independent reviews that are underway as a result of the Wairoa Flood event in June 2024 and in-depth discussions about the strategic enterprise risks of the:

6.1. effectiveness of funding and financial management (11)

6.2. coordination and connectedness of activity and decision-making across HBRC (13)

6.3. extent to which we understand expectation needs of our community (B)

6.4. cffectiveness of the NIWE Resilience Programme (22).

7. If councillors would like more detail on the discussions during the public excluded session, they are able to access the related Agenda and Minutes documents on Stellar.

Decision-making considerations

8. Council and its committees are required to make every decision in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements in relation to this item and have concluded:

8.1. The items were specifically considered by the Risk and Audit Committee on 1 May 2024.

8.2. Because this item is for information only, the decision-making provisions do not apply.

Recommendations

1. That Hawke’s Bay Regional Council receives and considers the Report from the Risk and Audit Committee, noting the resolution of the Committee that:

1.1. Confirms that the Internal Assurance Corrective actions update report has provided adequate information on the status of the Internal Assurance Corrective Actions.

Authored by:

Leeanne Hooper

Team Leader Governance

Approved by:

Susie Young

Group Manager Corporate Services

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

[1] Komar, D., Harris, E. (2014) Hawke’s Bay, New Zealand: Global climate change and barrier-beach responses. (HBRC Report No. AM 14-02 HBRC Plan No. 4600). Hawke’s Bay Regional Council. Available from: https://www.hbcoast.co.nz/assets/Uploads/Hawkes-Bay-Climate-and-Hazards-Report.pdf

[2] Ministry for the Environment. (2024) Coastal hazards and climate change guidance. Ministry for the Environment. Available from: https://environment.govt.nz/assets/publications/Coastal-hazards-and-climate-change-guidance-2024-ME-1805.pdf

[3] Asher, R. (2021) Review and recommendations for the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint Committee. Available from: https://www.hbcoast.co.nz/assets/Uploads/Raynor-Asher-Hawkes-Bay-Review-06-5-21.pdf

[4] For clarity, the version of the Strategy attached to this paper includes minor updates requested by the Joint Committee at the 9 August 2024 meeting.

1 ⇩	5 July 2024 Coastal Hazards Joint Committee meeting summary
2 ⇩	9 August 2024 Coastal Hazards Joint Committee meeting summary